Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson's comments.

[Shady]

It's not merely thinking homosexuality is a sin. He said, in no uncertain terms, that homosexuality leads to bestiality and other things. That's why his comments were so insulting. It's exactly like the idiots that claim homosexuality leads to pedophilia. There's no religious basis for it and there certainly isn't any empirical evidence for it.

He also compared it to heterosexual promiscuity. As a heterosexual, I don't take offence to his comparison, nor do I give it much significance. People like Bill Maher and Dan Savage say things much worse about Christians and Catholics on a regular basis. You need to grow a thicker skin instead of participating in the outrage industrial complex.

[Shady]

You couldn't swing a possum in rural Louisiana without hitting a born-again Christian who thinks homosexuality is a sin.

That can be said of many places. You couldn't swing a dead camel in Dearborn Michigan without hitting a Muslim who thinks the same thing.

[cybercoma]

What Bill Maher and Dan Savage say is completely irrelevant. His comparison to heterosexual promiscuity is also beside the point. He said homosexuality leads to bestiality. And I'm sorry, but if you can't see the difference between promiscuity and having sex with animals then there's something seriously wrong with you.

[Shady]

What Bill Maher and Dan Savage say is completely irrelevant. His comparison to heterosexual promiscuity is also beside the point. He said homosexuality leads to bestiality. And I'm sorry, but if you can't see the difference between promiscuity and having sex with animals then there's something seriously wrong with you.

No, he didn't say that it leads to beastiality. Perhaps you need to make yourself aware of what was acutally said.

[cybercoma]

No, he didn't say that it leads to beastiality. Perhaps you need to make yourself aware of what was acutally said.

You want to take a step back and try again, Shady?

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine," he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

[Boges]

You want to take a step back and try again, Shady?

Without being in Mr. Robertson's head, I think he was meaning to say it's all sin.

Up for interpretation I suppose though.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Boges

[Shady]

You want to take a step back and try again, Shady?

Boges is right. He's talking about what activities he considers sinful. Not what activities lead to other activities.

[GostHacked]

Wow I had to check this thread out for laughs.

18 pages worth.

[Shady]

If you want real laughs, check out the Rob Ford thread. 170 pages.

[The_Squid]

If you want real laughs, check out the Rob Ford thread. 170 pages.

150 of which are his defenders and cheerleaders.... but theeir posting seemed to dry up near the end for some reason....

[BubberMiley]

He's talking about what activities he considers sinful. Not what activities lead to other activities.

Why do you think he used the word "morph" then?

[Shady]

Why do you think he used the word "morph" then?

I don't know.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Shady

[Shady]

It doesn't really make sense to me personally. Because beasiality can't morph into promescuity, etc.

[The_Squid]

It doesn't really make sense to me personally. Because beasiality can't morph into promescuity, etc.

Do you think that someone could believe that homosexuality could morph into bestiality?

(not that it DOES... but could someone hold the belief that it does... don't get confused...)

[cybercoma]

Without being in Mr. Robertson's head, I think he was meaning to say it's all sin.

Up for interpretation I suppose though.

Boges is right. He's talking about what activities he considers sinful. Not what activities lead to other activities.

It's pretty clear what he said. He said homosexuality leads to bestiality and other things, and that they're all sinful. He said very clearly that one leads to the others. You two can whitewash his words all you want, but I'm not going to try to figure out what he was thinking or what he meant, as opposed to what he actually said. Edited December 31, 2013 by cybercoma

[BubberMiley]

If you want real laughs, check out the Rob Ford thread. 170 pages.

Thanks for the tip. The funniest part was the guy going on for weeks and weeks about how the video doesn’t exist and then disappearing when it was confirmed to exist. How humiliating!

[Shady]

Thanks for the tip. The funniest part was the guy going on for weeks and weeks about how the video doesn’t exist and then disappearing when it was confirmed to exist. How humiliating!

Not at all. I didn't go on for weeks, I posted a few times, until somebody reported me to the moderators about posting in that thread. I posted several times after the video (which we haven't actually seen) as well.

[Shady]

It's pretty clear what he said. He said homosexuality leads to bestiality and other things, and that they're all sinful. He said very clearly that one leads to the others. You two can whitewash his words all you want, but I'm not going to try to figure out what he was thinking or what he meant, as opposed to what he actually said.

I guess we can agree to disagree. But if what you say is true, he also said that homosexuality leads to sleeping around with women, and included beastiality with promescuity. As a heterosexual, I don't take offense. I just don't really care, nor do I put much significance into what he said. Like I've already said, you need to grow a thicker skin.

[GostHacked]

Like I've already said, you need to grow a thicker skin.

Yeah those atheists sure need to grow some thick skin. Imagine being offended by everything they do. Preposterous. But you could not care less from what I hear.

[Shady]

Yeah those atheists sure need to grow some thick skin. Imagine being offended by everything they do. Preposterous. But you could not care less from what I hear.

I'm not offended at what they do. However, they definitely do annoy me with their whining about wanting to be included in a bunch of stuff they profess to not believe in.

[bush_cheney2004]

Quite true. Not only that, but it's rich to hear such feigned concern from the certain ilk of the forum, that otherwise mock and ridicule the same group of people any other time. Not only that, but they routinely use the term "redneck" as an invective.

Good point... several members here have routinely done exactly that vis-a-vis "rednecks". And to broaden member kimmy's idea above, certain people just assume that the attributes of some "sub-cultures" are automatically embarrassing and dehumanizing because everybody else believes as they do, which certainly is not the case.

Generalizing a bit, one of the strongest weapons in the culture wars has been to purposely represent and exaggerate the attributes of a sub-culture in mainstream media. More specifically, the homosexual "sub-culture" has been very successful at exploiting this technique to defeat bigots and achieve legal/cultural acceptance.

[GostHacked]

I'm not offended at what they do. However, they definitely do annoy me with their whining about wanting to be included in a bunch of stuff they profess to not believe in.

Whining? How many status updates are about those pesky atheists that you made in the past few days? I count three. One more perhaps? Whining?

[BubberMiley]

I'm not offended at what they do. However, they definitely do annoy me with their whining about wanting to be included in a bunch of stuff they profess to not believe in.

Yes, it was also pretty funny when you disappeared from that thread after Kimmy asked you to provide one example of such whining. How humiliating!

[jacee]

I guess we can agree to disagree. But if what you say is true, he also said that homosexuality leads to sleeping around with women, and included beastiality with promescuity. As a heterosexual, I don't take offense. I just don't really care, nor do I put much significance into what he said. Like I've already said, you need to grow a thicker skin.

What Phil Robertson and others fail to recognize is that public condemnation of homosexuality by a public figure contributes to violent hate crimes against innocent people:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States

In 2011, the FBI reported 1,572 hate crime victims targeted based on a sexual orientation bias, making up 20.4% of the total hate crimes for that year. Of the total victims, 56.7% were targeted based on anti-male homosexual bias, 29.6% were targeted based on anti-homosexual bias, and 11.1% were targeted based on anti-female homosexual bias.

It is not benign, and thicker skin won't protect against violence.

[Shady]

Yes, it was also pretty funny when you disappeared from that thread after Kimmy asked you to provide one example of such whining. How humiliating!

Many examples, from the postings of atheist Christmas songs, postings of how atheists celebrate the Christmas holidays, postings about how the pope says that atheists can get into heaven, status updates mocking Christmas. The list goes on. Quite a bit of stuff for people that profess not to believe. You'd think they'd just not bother. But nope. Oh well. It's the new style atheist these days I guess. The prothletizing kind. Ironic.